Algore is a Lunatic…and a Desperate Swindler
I despise Algore. Possibly more than any other liberal I can think of. Why? Because when you disagree with him, he calls you an unsophisticated rube. One of those flat-earth, religious zealots. Can’t understand science. Now don’t get me wrong-all liberals make these same claims. But no one rambles on so unapologetically like Algore.
For example, see his article in Rolling Stone magazine, in which he spends approximately 12 pages venting his spleen about how everyone who doesn’t believe in man-made global warming is a Grade-A moron. When you read the article, you can’t help but picture Algore, stomping around his gigantic carbon-footprint of a house in L.A., throwing stuff and screaming about how stupid we all are. Case in point: Algore’s framing of the debate:
In one corner of the ring are Science and Reason. In the other corner: Poisonous Polluters and Right-wing Ideologues.
Algore, did you really need to capitalize “Science” and “Reason?” Does that add to their legitimacy? What Algore isn’t grasping is that he, and his global warming movement, completely lack credibility. Americans are pretty good at sniffing out b.s., and Algore bathes in it daily.
Let’s begin with Algore himself. He’s certainly been screaming the loudest about global warming…and the need to invest in “green technology” while implementing a cap and trade program. Here’s the problem. Believing what Algore says about global warming is akin to believing the salesman who tells you that you suffer from a rare disease, and only he has the cure…but it’ll cost you your vacation house in Barbados to get it. What do I mean? Algore has invested massive amounts of money in “green technology.” His response to those questioning his obvious conflict?
Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country? I am proud of it. I am proud of it.
No Algore, there’s nothing wrong with it. It just causes anyone with a little bit of common sense to question your motivations, that’s all.
And his Science and Reason? The R.S. article is chock full of it…except none of it cites to any authority or evidence, which as a lawyer, always makes me look around for the trash can. Instead, it’s all Algore’s ramblings…much of which is unbelievably hypocritical and/or debatable and/or wrong with the help of Google. Let’s take a look.
Polluters and Ideologues…are financing pseudoscientists whose job is to manufactured doubt about what is true and what is false….
Let’s face some facts here Algore. First, some of the “pseudoscientists,” as you call them, can be found here, thanks to Wikipedia (with links to sources). Now, can I speak to the credentials of all of these people? No. But that’s true for your “very best” Scientists too. Second, your Scientists have also been “financed,” except with government grants. Incredibly, or predictably, after having just attacked the non-believers as “pseudoscientists,” Algore goes on to scold the “Polluters and Ideologues” for their efforts to “undermine the public’s respect for Science and Reason by attacking the integrity of the climate scientists.” Wha? Look Algore, the public doesn’t need any help in undermining their respect for Science and Reason. The Scientists do that for them.
Remember the emails? Oh yeah, that whole thing about the Scientists conspiring to keep alternative views out of the global warming discussion, which we only know about because someone hacked into some Scientist’s email account:
Yet even a partial review of the emails is highly illuminating. In them, scientists appear to urge each other to present a “unified” view on the theory of man-made climate change while discussing the importance of the “common cause”; to advise each other on how to smooth over data so as not to compromise the favored hypothesis; to discuss ways to keep opposing views out of leading journals; and to give tips on how to “hide the decline” of temperature in certain inconvenient data.
Algore’s treatment of these emails in his short story? A three line paragraph essentially asking “what’s the big deal?” And what about his purported evidence of man-made global warming? Questionable, at best.
Heat: He uses anecdotal evidence about nineteen countries setting all-time high temperatures in 2010. I’m going to take your completely irrelevant fact and raise you one more: there are 195 countries in the world. He also claims 2010 was the hottest year on record. That could be, but a NASA Scientist, who Algore cites as being one of the “very best,” admitted to the following in 2007,
Moreover, NASA now also has to admit that three of the five warmest years on record occurred before 1940-it has up until now held that all five of them occurred after 1980.
And perhaps most devastating of all to the man-made global warming backers, it is now admitted that six of the 10 hottest years on record occurred when only 10% of the amount of greenhouse gases that have been emitted in the last century were in the atmosphere.
To be fair, the foregoing information only applies to the U.S., not the world. Although when the “world temperatures” are determined by largely ignoring cold places like Siberia, while relying upon lots of temperature readings taken in hotter urban areas, I’m not persuaded. Plus, according to another one of Algore’s Scientists, there’s been no “statistically significant” warming since 1995. This other guy agrees (more precisely, the former NASA scientist he cites to agrees). And then there’s Algore’s claim that half of the last decade was a “solar minimum,” despite its fictitious hot temperatures. Disagreements are found, here and here.
Floods and Drought: Algore claims, again with no cited authority, that “megafloods” in Pakistan and “historic drought” in Texas support his claims of man-made global warming/climate change. Well, the pseudoscientists at the weather channel blame the jet stream. So does this guy.
Melting Ice: Algore,
The acceleration of ice loss in both Greenland and Antarctica has caused another upward revision of global sea-level rise and the numbers of refugees from low-lying coastal areas.
Algore’s article is long. It weaves between calling Americans stupid couch-potatoes, advocating for what will almost certainly be efficient solar and wind production someday (considering two-thirds of all new solar projects and 85 percent of all new wind projects in the United States rely on government grants because they’re so inefficient, I’m not holding my breath), and complaining about the media. It really is like a never-ending stream of consciousness…and this post has already become too long. Lets end with the most dishonest assertion in an otherwise dishonest opinion piece,
The best available evidence demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the reckless spewing of global-warming pollution in obscene quantities into the atmospheric commons is having exactly the consequence long predicted by scientists who have analyzed the known facts according to the laws of physics.
David Evans, a Ph.D. who pushed man-made climate change for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999-2010, had this to say recently,
There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming.
But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.
You should read Evans’s entire article because it provides an inside look into the politics of man-made global warming, provided by a guy who was once a Scientist, but has since become a pseudoscientist. What’s his point? The theory of man-made global warming is wrong because the Scientists pushing the theory as fact are constantly wrong. And they’re wrong on purpose.
What’s the overarching point of all of this? Algore has a significant financial stake in a potential political power play that he needs to succeed. Because of this, he will continue asserting the existence of a consensus that doesn’t exist. And he still hasn’t put solar cells on the roof of his L.A. mansion.